Department of Clinical, Neuro, and Developmental Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
EMGO, Institute of Health Care Research, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Addiction. 2017 Sep;112(9):1521-1532. doi: 10.1111/add.13819. Epub 2017 Apr 25.
Research has shown that internet interventions can be effective for dependent users of various substances. However, less is known about the effects of these interventions on users of opioids, cocaine and amphetamines than for other substances. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of internet interventions in decreasing the usage of these types of substances.
We conducted a systematic literature search in the databases of PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled trials examining the effectiveness of internet interventions compared with control conditions in reducing the use of opioids, cocaine and amphetamines. No setting restrictions were applied. The risk of bias of the included studies was examined according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool. The primary outcome was substance use reduction assessed through toxicology screening, self-report or both at post-treatment and at the follow-up assessment.
Seventeen studies with 2836 adult illicit substance users were included. The risk of bias varied across the included studies. Internet interventions decreased significantly opioid [four studies, n = 606, g = 0.36; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.20-0.53, P < 0.001] and any illicit substance use (nine studies, n = 1749, g = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.24-0.45, P < 0.001) at post-treatment. Conversely, the effect of internet intervention for stimulant users was small and non-significant (four studies, n = 481, P = 0.164). Overall, internet interventions decreased substance significantly use at post-treatment (17 studies, n = 2836, g = 0.31; 95% CI = 0.23-0.39, P < 0.001) and at the follow-up assessments (nine studies, n = 1906, g = 0.22; 95% CI = 0.07-0.37; P = 0.003).
Internet interventions demonstrate small but significant effects in decreasing substance use among various target populations at post-treatment and at the follow-up assessment. However, given the small number of available studies for certain substances, the findings should be interpreted with caution.
研究表明,互联网干预措施对各种物质的依赖使用者可能有效。然而,与其他物质相比,我们对这些干预措施对阿片类药物、可卡因和安非他命使用者的效果了解较少。我们旨在研究互联网干预措施在减少这些类型物质使用方面的有效性。
我们在 PubMed、PsycINFO、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆的数据库中进行了系统文献检索,以确定比较互联网干预措施与对照条件在减少阿片类药物、可卡因和安非他命使用方面的有效性的随机对照试验。未对研究环境进行限制。根据 Cochrane 偏倚风险评估工具评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。主要结局是通过毒理学筛查、自我报告或两者结合在治疗后和随访评估中评估物质使用减少。
纳入了 17 项研究,共涉及 2836 名成年非法药物使用者。纳入研究的偏倚风险各不相同。互联网干预措施显著降低了阿片类药物的使用[四项研究,n=606,g=0.36;95%置信区间(CI)=0.20-0.53,P<0.001]和任何非法药物的使用(九项研究,n=1749,g=0.35;95%CI=0.24-0.45,P<0.001)在治疗后。相反,互联网干预对兴奋剂使用者的效果较小且不显著(四项研究,n=481,P=0.164)。总的来说,互联网干预措施在治疗后(17 项研究,n=2836,g=0.31;95%CI=0.23-0.39,P<0.001)和随访评估时(九项研究,n=1906,g=0.22;95%CI=0.07-0.37;P=0.003)显著降低了物质的使用。
互联网干预措施在治疗后和随访评估时,对各种目标人群的物质使用减少均显示出较小但有意义的效果。然而,由于某些物质的可用研究数量较少,因此应谨慎解释这些发现。